Date: Fri, 30 May 1997 08:57:44 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: uucp uid's Message-ID: <19970530085744.UT50834@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199705292138.OAA08658@seagull.rtd.com>; from Don Yuniskis on May 29, 1997 14:38:20 -0700 References: <19970529221908.FX28346@uriah.heep.sax.de> <199705292138.OAA08658@seagull.rtd.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Don Yuniskis wrote: > > I don't think there's a burning need why all the uucpers should have > > the same UID, but i figure it doesn't hurt either. > > It's nicer if they have different uid's -- lets you be a bit more > restrictive of the types of access you grant to each. Also lets > you see who's doing what... I think it's more of a ``It must be better, since my teacher tought me that each login needs a unque UID.'' argument. UUCP tracks activities by system name anyway. You can even get away with a single login name for all peers, but they gotta share the same password then (which is undesirable). These accounts are only supposed to run /usr/libexec/uucp/uucico, so the ``who's doing what'' argument is also a moot point. UUCP access restrictions are also placed per system, not per account. The only argument that made sense so far was somebody who wanted to run process accounting for them. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970530085744.UT50834>